[whymauri]

You may want to justify why it is "bad science" and write a letter to the editor of Nature and Nature Protocols. Is the media interpretation of these studies misguided? Sure, but the popular science media is not doing the science.

I would be peeved if people called my research "bad science" because some pop. sci. article doesn't understand it.

[fao_]

Nature is hardly the top of the crust these days with regards to academic oversight.

I can recall quite easily that a while back they published an article confirming ESP, and then refused to publish a replication of the same paper stating no results.

Because the first one sells issues and the second one doesn't.

[mattkrause]

Nature does love flashy stories but the ESP stuff wasn’t them, it was JPSP.

Here’s the citation: Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 407-425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021524

Nature did publish a thing on “water memory” in the 1980s. To their (partial) credit, it was published with an editorial pointing out how unlikely the findings were.

[fao_]

Thank you for the correction! :)